Monthly Archives: April 2013

The Tragedy of the Dumb Church — anti-intellectualism is a huge problem in churches. The author’s example of churches ignoring apologetics for adults and youth is the same thing I’ve seen at most churches.

—

More great undercover videos from Lila Rose — She busted Planned Parenthood a few times. Now she nails other abortionists for admitting what they’d do with babies who survived “botched abortions” (as someone on Facebook noted, is there a more bizarre term than that? I mean, they are saying, “We tried to kill this defenseless baby and she survived. What now?!”).

My only internal conflict is that abortions in the womb — whether early or not — are just as evil as infanticide. These Gosnell et al ghouls seem worse but pro-choices will just dismiss them as being extreme.

From an evolutionary perspective sex is little more than a means of spreading genes, of ensuring survival from one generation to the next. From a pornographic perspective, the meaning of sex is physical gratification so that a person’s worth extends no farther than her (or his) ability to satisfy another person’s cravings. From a romantic comedy perspective, sex is a component of an exploratory phase of a relationship and one that precedes expressions of love and loyalty. These are ubiquitous, powerful messages that compete with truth.

A Christian perspective on sex could hardly stand in sharper contrast. There we see that sex belongs to marriage and that marriage has been created by God for a very specific purpose. Before it is anything else, marriage is a picture, a metaphor, of the relationship of Christ and his church. Within that picture, that representation of Christ and his church, we have sex. Sex is a necessary component of marriage so that a couple desiring to live in obedience to the Bible will regularly have sex together (see 1 Corinthians 7:1-5). And here is where we come to your concern. . . .

This is where a Christian understanding of sex is so much better and greater than the alternatives. It heightens the purpose and importance of sex by celebrating all that sex is and all that it is meant to be, for it is here that the physical, the emotional and the spiritual come together in the most powerful way. Literally: the most powerful way. There is nothing in the human experience that brings these three together in such dramatic fashion and this is exactly why sex is reserved for the marriage bed. God wants marriage to be a unique kind of relationship and nothing marks marriage’s uniqueness more than sex.

Who would have guessed this? Having female prison guards in male prisons leads to rape, pregnancies and abuse. Sadly, because of political correctness the leaders must pretend the solution isn’t obvious. Therefore, they’ll spend a lot of time and money trying to fix the problem with things they know won’t work. The prison where I do some ministry has female guards. It always struck me as a combustible situation, and here’ s proof that it is.

—

Why is DHS stockpiling so much ammo? – Probably an unbelievably wasteful attempt to drive up prices. Yeah, let’s borrow more money from China during the sequester to throw away like this, while we cancel White House tours and deliberately make air travel less bearable.

As a skeptic, I believed that the story of the Resurrection was either a late distortion (a legend) created by Christians well after the fact, or a conspiratorial lie on the part of the original Apostles. It wasn’t until I started working homicides (and homicidal conspiracies in particular) that I decided an Apostolic conspiracy was unreasonable. I’ve written a chapter in Cold Case Christianity describing the five necessary elements of successful conspiracies, and none of these elements were present for the Apostles. But even more importantly, the Apostles lacked the proper motivation to lie about the Resurrection.

My case work as a homicide detective taught me something important: There are only three motives behind any murder (or any crime, or sin, for that matter). All crimes are motivated by financial greed, sexual lust (relational desire), or the pursuit of power.

If the Apostles committed the crime of fraud on an unsuspecting world, they were motivated by one of these three intentions. Most people will agree that none of the Apostles gained anything financially or sexually from their testimony, but some skeptics have argued the Apostles may have been motivated by the pursuit of power. Didn’t these men become leaders in the Church on the basis of their claims? Couldn’t this pursuit of leadership status have motivated them to lie? Wasn’t it a goal of early martyrs to die for their faith anyway?

The Apostles Knew the Difference Between Ministry and MartyrdomThe Book of Acts and the letters of Paul provide us with a glimpse into the lives of the Apostles. The Apostles were clearly pursued and mistreated, and the New Testament narratives and letters describe their repeated efforts to avoid capture. The Apostles continually evaded capture in an effort to continue their personal ministries as eyewitnesses. The New Testament accounts describe men who were bold enough to maintain their ministry, but clever enough to avoid apprehension for as long as possible.

The Apostles Knew the Difference Between a Consequence and a Goal
These early eyewitnesses were fully aware of the fact that their testimony would put them in jeopardy, but they understood this to be the consequence of their role as eyewitnesses rather than the goal. That’s why they attempted to avoid death as long as possible. While it may be true that later generations of believers wanted to emulate the Apostles through an act of martyrdom, this was not the case for the Apostles themselves.

The Apostles Knew the Difference Between Fame and Infamy
It’s one thing to be famous, but another to be famously despised. Some of us have attained widespread fame based on something noble (like Mother Teresa). Some of us have attained widespread fame because of something sinister (like Jerry Sandusky). The apostles were roundly despised by their Jewish culture as a consequence of their leadership within the fledgling Christian community. If they were lying about their testimony to gain the respect and admiration of the culture they were trying to convert, they were taking the wrong approach. The Apostles only succeeded in gaining the infamy that eventually cost them their lives. This was obvious to them from the onset; they knew their testimony would leave them powerless to stop their own brutal martyrdom.

As I examine the motives and consequences related to the testimony of the Apostles, I still find their martyrdom to be one of the most powerful evidences related to the veracity of their testimony.

Think about it for a minute: Twelve designated eyewitnesses travelled the known world to testify to the Resurrection. Not a single one of them recanted their testimony. Not a single one of them lived longer because of their testimony. Not a single one benefitted financially or relationally. These folks were either crazy or committed, certifiably nuts or certain about their observations.

1. The best exercise in the world for children is to let them romp and jump about, as soon as they are able, according to their own fancy.

2. A parent that has once obtained and knows how to preserve authority will do more by a look of displeasure, than another by the most passionate words and even blows. It holds universally in families and schools, and even the greater bodies of men, the army and navy, that those who keep the strictest discipline give the fewest strokes.

3. There is not a more disgusting sight than the impotent rage of a parent who has no authority.

—

My only complaint about Marshall is that he doesn’t post often enough. But he’s back with a great take-down on a false teacher who insists that God is pleased with “committed, loving and monogamous” homosexual unions and that Bible-believers should change because we are on the “wrong side of history.” My comment there:

Great post, Marshall. I could comment on each individually point but would basically be reiterating what you said. So I’ll just note how ridiculous it is for anyone — let alone an alleged follower of Christ — to appeal to a public majority as an authentic, God-approved victory. Using that logic, the early church was on the “losing side of history,” for they had no way of knowing that the persecution would ever end.

1 John 2:15-16 Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world–the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does–comes not from the Father but from the world.

P.S. Re. “two committed, loving and monogamous homosexuals” — 3% of the population is homosexual, and probably 3% of those want to marry, and even less of those even want to be monogamous (another dirty little secret that the media won’t tell you). So as you noted, this is a fantastically small percentage of people to abandon free speech and freedom of religion over — not to mention the active destruction of the innocence of children via public school indoctrination.

And having read the Bible many times, I assure you that there is no passage even hinting that being fully committed to your rebellion-of-choice against God somehow sanitizes it.

—

Atheist professor converts to Christianity. I appreciated his concession that he would use his experience to “buffalo” his students.

This is why everyone should want limited government: Even though the need for helium regulations ended over 80 years ago AND there have been bi-partisan efforts to get rid of them, they still exist.

—

Hey! Politicians Are People Too — Don’t let the title fool you. It doesn’t mean, “. . . so don’t be so critical of them!” It is a great reminder of why we should limit their power, not increase it.

Of all that the American founders understood when they set this grand experiment in motion, their keen grasp of man’s propensity for evil might have been their greatest asset. And this asset led them to limited the power, not only of the government, but of the majority also. While they realized that government must exist, * they did not envision government as a benevolent god-like entity. No, they saw government as a dangerous collection of flawed individuals who suffer from the same afflictions of arrogance and selfishness that plague all mankind; especially those who seek, and then are lent, the reins of power.

Some see government as naturally benevolent because politicians are freed from the motivation of profit. Such is a naive and gullible view. Politicians have plenty to profit politically by making popular promises today while strapping future generations with the bill. Meanwhile, for the “benevolent” politician, power is a great source of wealth, luxury and ease. One need only observe politicians, both the ones they love and hate, to see this.

Sadly, and much to even my own dismay, government is not a god-like entity that can usher in social justice, and this is especially true when it is elected by a constituency that rejects the very existence of moral absolutes. No, the government is a collection of flawed politicians with their own aspirations and venal motivations, because, in the end, politicians are people too.

—

Voddie Baucham has a great critique of the “sissified needy Jesus” preached by far too many. His generic quote about what lots of pastors say (“people already know that they’re bad,” so I don’t need to preach about sin) is precisely what a bad pastor at a previous church (Disciples of Christ) used to say. No, we reflexively (rotten) cherry pick people to compare ourselves to based on our own un-Godly standards so we can feel better about ourselves.

—

—

It shows their lack of character that they would deliberately make their “subjects” suffer to advance their ideology.

A common tactic from New Atheists is to use the term bronze age mythology to dismiss Biblical views, as if the time period when truth claims were documented can be used to categorically refute them.

But the age of an idea does not impact its truthfulness. Older ideas have usually gone through more scrutiny than newer ones and are often better supported.

Sure, many old ideas were wrong. But they weren’t wrong because they were documented a long time ago, they were wrong because they were didn’t correspond to reality.

So the bronze age dig proves nothing, and even if it was true it would undermine atheistic arguments as well. The real bronze age myth is that you can live how you want and never be accountable to your creator.

As Psalm 14:1 points out, the claim that there is no God is also bronze aged:

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds . . .”

And of course, Romans 1:

Romans 1:18-20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

And as you can see from reading St. Augustine and others, the arguments of the New Atheists aren’t new at all. They are the same old arguments presented with less civility and with the volume turned up to 11.

So don’t buy into the myth that the bronze age argument means anything.

This culture pretends to care about kids but the actions don’t show it: Abortion, adultery, “same-sex marriage,” easy divorce and so much more.—

Here’s another Leftist outlet that returns literally zero hits when searching for “Gosnell” — Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis and his organization are doing a great job of advancing the Leftist cause of hiding these crimes. Their title even references social justice, but they haven’t written a word about Kermit Gosnell and his mass infanticides. They are too busy claiming to be prophets in trying to gut the 2nd Amendment and to disarm you.24

Supposedly there may be a movie version of the book, The Shack. A good analysis of the bad theology from that book is here. If you hear people talk about the movie please share those concerns with them. (Hat tip: Erich from Facebook)

—

The Liberal “safe sex” programs are a lie, because they ignore the spiritual and emotional aspects of sex and give a false sense of security (birth control often fails and even if used correctly it doesn’t prevent all diseases). But even if they weren’t lying, they would be inconsistent for saying that sex ed won’t increase sexual behavior but gun education would increase the misuse of guns.

The religion in question is Islam, of course, and the answer is no. So why do so many falseteachers say it is? They are either ignorant useful idiots (bad) or knowingly malicious (worse). As always, I thank God for disobedient Muslims who don’t do what the Quran says.

The Quran does not have a single verse encouraging love towards those outside of Islam. But there are 493 passages that either endorse violence or talk about the hatred of Allah for the infidels, meaning all non-Muslims. The Quran is a book mainly concerned with how Muslims are to think and act towards those outside of Islam; that is, either kill them or force them to live as second-class citizens and pay taxes (Jizya). More than half the contents of the Quran are texts despising or inciting against non-Muslims. This is what turns Islam into a religion of hate and violence, for which history carries much evidence.

Those criticizing Islam are branded with epithets such as “Islamophobe”, “racist” or “right-wing extremist”. A phobia is an unjustified fear of something. Criticizing Islam does not constitute a phobia, but rather a very much justified activity, bearing in mind the content of the above-mentioned scripture, as well as current events in Muslim countries as well as in the Western world. Islam is not merely a religion, it is also a totalitarian theological and political ideology, according to which everything has to be subject to the Quran and the Shariah. It denies fundamental human rights such as freedom of religion, freedom of expression and equal rights for women. The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam is a United Nations “Regional instrument” that may be applied as alternative to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration, signed by all 57 members of the OIC, clearly stipulates that human rights are subject to Shariah and interpreted according to it.

The Family Research Council is the opposite of hateful, but people like Chuck and the SPLC try to shut down opposing views by labeling them as such. It is a despicably cynical move on their part, but what should we expect from such wolves?